On the northern hemisphere we’re at the end of summer. Most people will have used their fair share of sunscreen to avoid getting a sunburn, but now it turns out that the country known for their...
On the northern hemisphere we’re at the end of summer. Most people will have used their fair share of sunscreen to avoid getting a sunburn, but now it turns out that the country known for their religious use of sunscreen is in the middle of a scandal over false SPF claims. I’m pretty shocked to see this article pop up. I thought sunscreen was a solved problem and most, if not all, sunscreen brands could be trusted. And this happening in Australia, where sunscreen is more scrutinized, makes me wonder if the store brand stuff I’ve been using is even doing anything. It also makes me angry because it’s the stuff we use to keep our kids safe and give them a good, healthy start in life. I’m curious if this will lead to more lab tests in the EU and other parts of the world.
Scientifically solved != Legally regulated != Enforced. All of humanities gains over eons, such as food and water, medicinal architectural chemical progress, all health, shelter, safety, depend on...
Scientifically solved != Legally regulated != Enforced. All of humanities gains over eons, such as food and water, medicinal architectural chemical progress, all health, shelter, safety, depend on enforcement alone. I hope many heads roll
Totally anecdotal, but I burn easily and the products in NA that I've been buying from Costco and the local grocery store do work - I still get blotchy burns that reflect where I inadequately...
Totally anecdotal, but I burn easily and the products in NA that I've been buying from Costco and the local grocery store do work - I still get blotchy burns that reflect where I inadequately applied sunscreen, and I'm fine where I got good coverage. I have noticed that my lips have been burning more as I get older and I keep forgetting about sunscreen lip balms...so that's been my major issue. Still, scary to think that products are being sold that don't work.
Sunscreen in general should not be a first defense. It's very easy to miss spots or apply too thinly without realizing, and it needs to be reapplied every two hours (more often if you're swimming...
Sunscreen in general should not be a first defense. It's very easy to miss spots or apply too thinly without realizing, and it needs to be reapplied every two hours (more often if you're swimming or sweating). Plus, the sunscreen itself can be ruined if the bottle is exposed to heat (e.g., if you leave it in your car or leave it out in the sun at the beach; it should be kept in a cooler with ice).
I worked on a farm for eight years, and I learned to rely primarily on other methods that don't give you a false sense of security: long-sleeve shirts, wide-brimmed hats, etc.
For farm work protective gear makes a lot of sense, but in situations where people have the choice I think many would rather just stay indoors if spending time outside means keeping as much skin...
For farm work protective gear makes a lot of sense, but in situations where people have the choice I think many would rather just stay indoors if spending time outside means keeping as much skin covered or shaded as possible, which explains sunscreen being popular as first line defense.
Especially in Asia and the Middle East, UV wear is super popular. It's possible to cover most exposed skin with extremely lightweight, breathable, or even cooling fabrics. Hats are extremely...
Especially in Asia and the Middle East, UV wear is super popular. It's possible to cover most exposed skin with extremely lightweight, breathable, or even cooling fabrics.
Hats are extremely popular in the summer, even though they can be sweaty.
For sure! My long sleeve work shirts are substantially cooler than a T-shirt. If you occasionally mist your hat with water, you'll get a nice evaporative cooling effect that will make it more...
For sure! My long sleeve work shirts are substantially cooler than a T-shirt.
If you occasionally mist your hat with water, you'll get a nice evaporative cooling effect that will make it more comfortable (nicer than a bare head, in my opinion, at least if you have dark hair).
No it’s not. They will cheat and lie if it means extra profits. It’s the enforcement body’s job to, well, do their job and enforce/punish. Nothing else works. See “self regulation” in any...
"Ultimately it is the sponsor's [seller's] responsibility to ensure that their medicine remains compliant with all applicable legislative requirements."
No it’s not. They will cheat and lie if it means extra profits. It’s the enforcement body’s job to, well, do their job and enforce/punish. Nothing else works. See “self regulation” in any industry. Why are industries spending so much money to lobby for self regulation if it did really work as intended?
I hate that we have to keep having these types of conversations. So many social problems are directly caused by a lack of regulation. And the arguments against regulation obviously stem from a...
I hate that we have to keep having these types of conversations. So many social problems are directly caused by a lack of regulation. And the arguments against regulation obviously stem from a conflict of interest most of the time.
This is surprising to me, and seems wildly inadequate. Real-world testing definitely has it's place, especially with a product that people use on their skin. Up until this moment though, I assumed...
Historically, it has been done by spreading the sunscreen on 10 people at the same thickness, then timing how long it takes for their skin to start burning both with and without the product applied.
This is surprising to me, and seems wildly inadequate. Real-world testing definitely has it's place, especially with a product that people use on their skin. Up until this moment though, I assumed that verifying efficacy for sunscreen would involve lab tests under controlled conditions. UV and infrared lamps, photometers, testing for chemical contaminants arising from heavy UV exposure, etc etc.
I had also assumed that they would have a more reliable and scientific testing process, like coating a glass pane in the sunscreen, shining UV-A/B/C on it at a specific intensity, and measuring...
I had also assumed that they would have a more reliable and scientific testing process, like coating a glass pane in the sunscreen, shining UV-A/B/C on it at a specific intensity, and measuring how much gets through to the other side. Then other tests could be performed to ensure that it maintains its effficacy when applied to skin. It's pretty surprising to read that they just put some sunscreen on some people and try to give them a sun burn.
This seems like a particularly unreliable method. Also, how would you possibly determine the exact moment that someone's skin started burning? Isn't that something you can't really measure until...
This seems like a particularly unreliable method. Also, how would you possibly determine the exact moment that someone's skin started burning? Isn't that something you can't really measure until after it has already been happening for a while? The only readily available indicators (red skin and pain) lag behind the burning mechanism (DNA damage). And those indicators are fairly subjective too. As you say, there's definitely a place for this kind of test, but I can't imagine it being the primary test.
There was a very well done video I watched about a year ago of an Australian woman who did grid testing of a ton of different sunscreens on her own skin. Seems very appropriate to find it and post...
There was a very well done video I watched about a year ago of an Australian woman who did grid testing of a ton of different sunscreens on her own skin. Seems very appropriate to find it and post it.
The country has the highest incidence of skin cancers in the world and it is estimated that two out of three Australians will have at least one cut out in their lifetime.
Australia and New Zealand vie for first place in skin cancer rates. The sun is more intense down here. When I lived in the US (in the Southeast), it took me noticeably longer to burn than where I...
Australia and New Zealand vie for first place in skin cancer rates. The sun is more intense down here.
When I lived in the US (in the Southeast), it took me noticeably longer to burn than where I live now in Australia, even though I'm now further from the equator and at a lower elevation.
Apparently it's because the Earth is slightly egg shaped! The Southern hemisphere has more UV intense summers because it's marginally closer to the sun.
Apparently it's because the Earth is slightly egg shaped! The Southern hemisphere has more UV intense summers because it's marginally closer to the sun.
The article says Earth's path around the Sun is slightly egg-shaped. Not Earth itself. Correcting this so the people who read just your comment and not the article do not leave with an incorrect...
Apparently it's because the Earth is slightly egg shaped!
The article says Earth's path around the Sun is slightly egg-shaped. Not Earth itself. Correcting this so the people who read just your comment and not the article do not leave with an incorrect mental model. Thanks for providing an interesting source.
That makes far more sense, because the Earth being egg shaped would seemingly be negligible with regards to the distance to the Sun from varying parts of Earth.
That makes far more sense, because the Earth being egg shaped would seemingly be negligible with regards to the distance to the Sun from varying parts of Earth.
Atmospheric blocking is also why vitamin d deficiency is more of a problem at higher latitudes. (The cruel joke of it is you can get a sunburn without making enough vit d in the winter)
Atmospheric blocking is also why vitamin d deficiency is more of a problem at higher latitudes. (The cruel joke of it is you can get a sunburn without making enough vit d in the winter)
The extra cruel twist is experiencing snowburn. Which is when you get a sunburn from the sunlight reflecting off the snow pack while skiing or similar activity. What makes it especially cruel is,...
The extra cruel twist is experiencing snowburn.
Which is when you get a sunburn from the sunlight reflecting off the snow pack while skiing or similar activity. What makes it especially cruel is, because it's reflected sunlight, it burns you at the reverse angle. So you get to experience pain in fun new places, like under your forearms and the underside of your nose and chin.
Not surprised to see this, unfortunately. Banana Boat in particular has been failing independent tests (from Choice as well as from other groups like Consumer Reports) for well over a decade now,...
Not surprised to see this, unfortunately. Banana Boat in particular has been failing independent tests (from Choice as well as from other groups like Consumer Reports) for well over a decade now, with copious customer complaints to back it up and yet they're still up and running.
If anyone is looking for a very good sunscreen that is very safe and light on ingredients. My wife and family use Badger products. I don't use the one I'm linking here because it doesn't work...
If anyone is looking for a very good sunscreen that is very safe and light on ingredients. My wife and family use Badger products. I don't use the one I'm linking here because it doesn't work great on my hairy arms and legs, but this is some good stuff. https://www.badgerbalm.com/products/adventure-sport-mineral-sunscreen-tin-spf-50
Yeah sure mate. If by "shocking" you mean "makes us raise an eyebrow before moving on with our lives". I know you're just using the article's title as written, but fuck whoever wrote the article's...
shocking Australia
Yeah sure mate. If by "shocking" you mean "makes us raise an eyebrow before moving on with our lives".
I know you're just using the article's title as written, but fuck whoever wrote the article's title.
Based on most of the comments here, people assume that products sold as sunscreen actually work. The products are regulated and supposedly meet the regulations, so consumers expect them to work as...
Based on most of the comments here, people assume that products sold as sunscreen actually work. The products are regulated and supposedly meet the regulations, so consumers expect them to work as advertised.
On the northern hemisphere we’re at the end of summer. Most people will have used their fair share of sunscreen to avoid getting a sunburn, but now it turns out that the country known for their religious use of sunscreen is in the middle of a scandal over false SPF claims. I’m pretty shocked to see this article pop up. I thought sunscreen was a solved problem and most, if not all, sunscreen brands could be trusted. And this happening in Australia, where sunscreen is more scrutinized, makes me wonder if the store brand stuff I’ve been using is even doing anything. It also makes me angry because it’s the stuff we use to keep our kids safe and give them a good, healthy start in life. I’m curious if this will lead to more lab tests in the EU and other parts of the world.
Scientifically solved != Legally regulated != Enforced. All of humanities gains over eons, such as food and water, medicinal architectural chemical progress, all health, shelter, safety, depend on enforcement alone. I hope many heads roll
Totally anecdotal, but I burn easily and the products in NA that I've been buying from Costco and the local grocery store do work - I still get blotchy burns that reflect where I inadequately applied sunscreen, and I'm fine where I got good coverage. I have noticed that my lips have been burning more as I get older and I keep forgetting about sunscreen lip balms...so that's been my major issue. Still, scary to think that products are being sold that don't work.
Seems like the idea that it was solved may have led to lax standards, complacency and perfunctory testing.
Sunscreen in general should not be a first defense. It's very easy to miss spots or apply too thinly without realizing, and it needs to be reapplied every two hours (more often if you're swimming or sweating). Plus, the sunscreen itself can be ruined if the bottle is exposed to heat (e.g., if you leave it in your car or leave it out in the sun at the beach; it should be kept in a cooler with ice).
I worked on a farm for eight years, and I learned to rely primarily on other methods that don't give you a false sense of security: long-sleeve shirts, wide-brimmed hats, etc.
For farm work protective gear makes a lot of sense, but in situations where people have the choice I think many would rather just stay indoors if spending time outside means keeping as much skin covered or shaded as possible, which explains sunscreen being popular as first line defense.
Especially in Asia and the Middle East, UV wear is super popular. It's possible to cover most exposed skin with extremely lightweight, breathable, or even cooling fabrics.
Hats are extremely popular in the summer, even though they can be sweaty.
For sure! My long sleeve work shirts are substantially cooler than a T-shirt.
If you occasionally mist your hat with water, you'll get a nice evaporative cooling effect that will make it more comfortable (nicer than a bare head, in my opinion, at least if you have dark hair).
No it’s not. They will cheat and lie if it means extra profits. It’s the enforcement body’s job to, well, do their job and enforce/punish. Nothing else works. See “self regulation” in any industry. Why are industries spending so much money to lobby for self regulation if it did really work as intended?
I hate that we have to keep having these types of conversations. So many social problems are directly caused by a lack of regulation. And the arguments against regulation obviously stem from a conflict of interest most of the time.
This is surprising to me, and seems wildly inadequate. Real-world testing definitely has it's place, especially with a product that people use on their skin. Up until this moment though, I assumed that verifying efficacy for sunscreen would involve lab tests under controlled conditions. UV and infrared lamps, photometers, testing for chemical contaminants arising from heavy UV exposure, etc etc.
I had also assumed that they would have a more reliable and scientific testing process, like coating a glass pane in the sunscreen, shining UV-A/B/C on it at a specific intensity, and measuring how much gets through to the other side. Then other tests could be performed to ensure that it maintains its effficacy when applied to skin. It's pretty surprising to read that they just put some sunscreen on some people and try to give them a sun burn.
This seems like a particularly unreliable method. Also, how would you possibly determine the exact moment that someone's skin started burning? Isn't that something you can't really measure until after it has already been happening for a while? The only readily available indicators (red skin and pain) lag behind the burning mechanism (DNA damage). And those indicators are fairly subjective too. As you say, there's definitely a place for this kind of test, but I can't imagine it being the primary test.
https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-personal-care/skin-care-and-cosmetics/articles/sunscreen-test
Here is the study link.
There was a very well done video I watched about a year ago of an Australian woman who did grid testing of a ton of different sunscreens on her own skin. Seems very appropriate to find it and post it.
[Edit] And here it is! https://youtu.be/JckfmlbU5C8
That was an interesting and fun thing to watch, thanks for sharing!
This seems shockingly high.
Australia and New Zealand vie for first place in skin cancer rates. The sun is more intense down here.
When I lived in the US (in the Southeast), it took me noticeably longer to burn than where I live now in Australia, even though I'm now further from the equator and at a lower elevation.
Apparently it's because the Earth is slightly egg shaped! The Southern hemisphere has more UV intense summers because it's marginally closer to the sun.
The article says Earth's path around the Sun is slightly egg-shaped. Not Earth itself. Correcting this so the people who read just your comment and not the article do not leave with an incorrect mental model. Thanks for providing an interesting source.
That makes far more sense, because the Earth being egg shaped would seemingly be negligible with regards to the distance to the Sun from varying parts of Earth.
you do get higher UV exposure at higher altitudes, so if egg-shape did affect UV levels, I'd expect less atmosphere to be the mechanism
Atmospheric blocking is also why vitamin d deficiency is more of a problem at higher latitudes. (The cruel joke of it is you can get a sunburn without making enough vit d in the winter)
The extra cruel twist is experiencing snowburn.
Which is when you get a sunburn from the sunlight reflecting off the snow pack while skiing or similar activity. What makes it especially cruel is, because it's reflected sunlight, it burns you at the reverse angle. So you get to experience pain in fun new places, like under your forearms and the underside of your nose and chin.
Not surprised to see this, unfortunately. Banana Boat in particular has been failing independent tests (from Choice as well as from other groups like Consumer Reports) for well over a decade now, with copious customer complaints to back it up and yet they're still up and running.
If anyone is looking for a very good sunscreen that is very safe and light on ingredients. My wife and family use Badger products. I don't use the one I'm linking here because it doesn't work great on my hairy arms and legs, but this is some good stuff.
https://www.badgerbalm.com/products/adventure-sport-mineral-sunscreen-tin-spf-50
Yeah sure mate. If by "shocking" you mean "makes us raise an eyebrow before moving on with our lives".
I know you're just using the article's title as written, but fuck whoever wrote the article's title.
Based on most of the comments here, people assume that products sold as sunscreen actually work. The products are regulated and supposedly meet the regulations, so consumers expect them to work as advertised.